this thread is about donald trump's admiration for dictators and human rights abusers.

the whole world knows he is a fucking idiot............ we've been through it countless times.

trump has a serious boner for dictators and authoritarian leaders! FACT!

This thread is about Trump...... and the aforementioned dictatory traits........ not fucking obama....... or hillary...... or the criminals or elvis fucking presley working at a coin op laundry in cleveland.

the whole world knows he is a fucking idiot............ we've been through it countless times.

trump has a serious boner for dictators and authoritarian leaders! FACT!

This thread is about Trump...... and the aforementioned dictatory traits........ not fucking obama....... or hillary...... or the criminals or elvis fucking presley working at a coin op laundry in cleveland.

Yes, but that's what Trump supporters do.

If the bloated orange douche-bag is caught out doing something bad/unconstitutional/illegal/corrupt, they respond by saying "Well, at least he isn't Hillary".

Yes, it's legal, but it is abused. The illegals have learned the game. Now, they are ALL claiming asylum. They jump the border and just wait to be picked up by the Border Patrol and claim asylum. Because we cannot by law just toss them back over the border, we give them a court date and release them into the U.S. Then, only a tiny, tiny fraction of them show up for court. The rest just disappear into the U.S. This is the game. It makes a mockery of our immigration system, our laws, and our willingness to accept legitimate asylum seekers.

greggerypeccary wrote:Now, why do you ignore the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants in your country (and mine) arrived by plane?

The Department of Homeland Security says there were around 600,000 visa overstays in FY 2017. These are people who entered legally (like by plane) but who didn't leave when they were supposed to. That number is about the same as the number of illegal immigrants we are arresting on the border who are on foot.

I answered your question. Now you answer my questions.

"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." - Dwight D Eisenhower

So ... I'll ask the question again. If Australia had a 2000 mile border with Asia, how would you stop millions of illegal immigrants from just walking in? Not with a barrier, you say. How then?

You give them NOTHING. No employment, no housing, no health care, nothing. Zero. Nada. You take the sugar off the table.

And you would be accused of killing children and being inhumane. And you would be labelled a racist. And if you denied that you were a racist, that would be cited as evidence of your racism.

And how would you deal with all these people (tens of thousands every month) claiming asylum? Surely, you would be bound to keep them at least long enough to investigate their case, wouldn't you? And just how would you "keep them" as their case wound its way through your court system as tens of thousands arrived behind them?

I'll tell you how. You don't have room anywhere to detain them, not even on your prison islands. So you'd release them into your country. And months or years later, when their case came up, you have maybe 1 or 2 percent of them show up for court. Meanwhile, tens of thousands more have poured in, all claiming asylum, completely overwhelming your system.

You have no barrier along your border because, like our Democrats say, "that's not the image we want to project."

No, Aussie. You can't kill mothers and children for lack of medical care. You can't throw asylum seekers back into a country that they claim is persecuting them. You can't be labelled a racist. And, according to at least one guy here, you can't have a barrier along your hypothetical border with Asia, and it's legal to claim asylum.

So your country is screwed.

But, I assume you guys would at least be consistent with what you expect from the U.S. which is no border barrier. I'll bet you guys would feel really good about yourselves for that.

"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." - Dwight D Eisenhower

And you would be accused of killing children and being inhumane. And you would be labelled a racist. And if you denied that you were a racist, that would be cited as evidence of your racism.

Really. Think I'd take the position that invaders get SFA. With 'tough titties' added.

And how would you deal with all these people (tens of thousands every month) claiming asylum? Surely, you would be bound to keep them at least long enough to investigate their case, wouldn't you? And just how would you "keep them" as their case wound its way through your court system as tens of thousands arrived behind them?

I'll tell you how. You don't have room anywhere to detain them, not even on your prison islands. So you'd release them into your country. And months or years later, when their case came up, you have maybe 1 or 2 percent of them show up for court. Meanwhile, tens of thousands more have poured in, all claiming asylum, completely overwhelming your system.

Well, I'll answer that this way. While we want the accolades for being a signatory to that UNHCR Convention, I'd have to suck it up. On the other hand, if I did not want to be known as a humane person, I'd repudiate that signatory.

You have no barrier along your border because, like our Democrats say, "that's not the image we want to project."

Nah. As you are so envious of....we have a natural barrier.

No, Aussie. You can't kill mothers and children for lack of medical care.

I would deny non asylum seeker invaders that care...excluding kids. I'd give them care. Their Parents can perish. They made their bed.

You can't throw asylum seekers back into a country that they claim is persecuting them.

Correct.

You can't be labelled a racist.

Happy to be labelled as Law abiding, including Internation Law abiding.

And, according to at least one guy here, you can't have a barrier along your hypothetical border with Asia, and it's legal to claim asylum.

It is correct to say that it is totally legal to claim asylum.

So your country is screwed.

I don't think so.

But, I assume you guys would at least be consistent with what you expect from the U.S. which is no border barrier. I'll bet you guys would feel really good about yourselves for that.

What I would expect of the USA is that it act according to what it signed up to.

SethBullock wrote:Were you guys just as concerned when Obama weaponized the IRS, the FBI, and the Department of Justice, and appointed a political hack to head the CIA?

I'm not even sure what you mean when you say he weaponized them. Should we have been concerned?

First of all, I don't expect you guys to be as up on U.S. stuff as I am, just as I am certainly not up on Australian political stuff as much as you are. Secondly, I suspect that you guys get most of your news about American politics from the "usual suspects". The usual suspects masquerade as news organizations, but they are not really news organizations as much as they are mouthpieces for the Democratic Party in the U.S.

So when the Obama IRS singles out exclusively conservative groups for special IRS scrutiny, but not liberal groups, I would not expect that to make the news in Australia. And when it leaked out in the U.S., the actual manager who was perpetrating these acts went completely silent and resigned with her pension. And - get this - all of her emails disappeared off the IRS server due to "a malfunction." Now, did our liberal media react like they would if this IRS persecution had been perpetrated by the Trump administration? Did they react the same way if all of those emails disappeared because of a so-called "malfunction" if Trump had been president and the IRS was persecuting liberal groups? No, and no. Of course not! They were more than happy to just let the story die on the vine.

And the FBI was utterly politicized! The investigation into Hillary's server was an utter disgrace. Complete and total utter disgrace! It was designed from the start to exonerate her even though she hired a professional to destroy all her email records, right down to physically destroying the hardware. Privately, professional FBI agents knew it was a disgrace.

And, just prior to the public announcement of the results of that investigation, the Attorney General - the head of the Department of Justice - met with Bill Clinton. Where? In an airplane on a remote corner of an airport tarmac far from Washington, far from prying eyes. A leak revealed the meeting. I suspect that professionals in the FBI or Secret Service leaked the news because it was so corrupt. The reaction? The AG and Bill claimed they were just chatting about their children. Yeah, riiiiiight!

Give me a break! "Chatting about their children" on a remote tarmac at an airport.

Please try to just imagine the hue and cry if Trump had done the same.

And then the Director of the FBI declares publicly that Hillary committed no prosecutable crime. The role of law enforcement is to investigate, turn over the results of the investigation to the DOJ, and let the the Department of Justice decide if the crimes are to be prosecuted. But, you know, Obama, Hillary, the DOJ and the AG didn't want that. What they all wanted was for the FBI Director to clear Hillary so they wouldn't have to take any responsibility for a decision. So the process was perverted to that end by a willing and corrupt FBI Director.

So yes, the IRS, the DOJ, and the FBI, with all of its political hacks betrayed the trust placed in them.

And if you all think Obama is soooooo smart, then you cannot believe this happened by accident.

Now just imagine if Trump did this. The outrage from the liberal media and the left in general would be deafening.

And then this same Democratic Party and the fawning liberal media that is married to it anointed Hillary to be their presidential candidate.

This, my friends, is "the swamp" in action.

johnsmith wrote:And do you think thrumpy should be publicly showing such unbridled adoration for someone like Kim Jung Un?

Trump is the most transparent president we have had in my lifetime. (Perhaps Eisenhower matches that transparency.) When Kimmy was lobbing missiles over Japan and talking about destroying the U.S. in a nuclear holocaust, Trump vilified him and directly threatened him with fire and fury. But when he saw a chance to avoid war, he softened up. He has tried to be complimentary and positive, as long as a chance for peace and a positive future has a chance to become a reality. Clearly, he is trying to keep this process on a positive track, and I have zero doubt that he is swallowing his true feelings about that demented little dictator for the greater good. It's obvious.

Seth

Thanks for the explanation. Politicians try and abuse their power to attack their 'enemies' all the time. If they can get away with influencing government departments, they will. The conservatives here have set up an 'independent board' whose sole purpose appears to be to destroy the power of unions. (the other main party over here, the labor party, was started by the unions). Then we have ministers using the federal police to sling mud at their opponents. After months of mud slinging and bad press for the opponent in question, the feds or the courts then come out and say there is no evidence etc etc etc. ... by then it's to late. The person in question has been dragged through the public wringer for months. Mud has a habit of sticking. I don't like when any politician does it, regardless of what side they're on. These govt. bodies need to be politically neutral to work effectively. Although I can see why that is sometimes impossible when it is politicians controlling their purse strings.

SethBullock wrote:Trump is the most transparent president we have had in my lifetime. (Perhaps Eisenhower matches that transparency.) When Kimmy was lobbing missiles over Japan and talking about destroying the U.S. in a nuclear holocaust, Trump vilified him and directly threatened him with fire and fury. But when he saw a chance to avoid war, he softened up. He has tried to be complimentary and positive, as long as a chance for peace and a positive future has a chance to become a reality. Clearly, he is trying to keep this process on a positive track, and I have zero doubt that he is swallowing his true feelings about that demented little dictator for the greater good. It's obvious.

I don't agree. Trump even publicly denigrates your own intelligence and defence forces to try and appease the little dictator. In my humble aussie opinion, that is ridiculous. Bordering on treachery.

I just saw this video Seth, and thought it relevant to the point you made above .... will you winge about Trump as much as you do about Obama, now that he threatens he will use 'HIS police, military and biker supporters to get tough on his opponents'.

FD.I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

SethBullock wrote:Were you guys just as concerned when Obama weaponized the IRS, the FBI, and the Department of Justice, and appointed a political hack to head the CIA?

I'm not even sure what you mean when you say he weaponized them. Should we have been concerned?

First of all, I don't expect you guys to be as up on U.S. stuff as I am, just as I am certainly not up on Australian political stuff as much as you are. Secondly, I suspect that you guys get most of your news about American politics from the "usual suspects". The usual suspects masquerade as news organizations, but they are not really news organizations as much as they are mouthpieces for the Democratic Party in the U.S.

So when the Obama IRS singles out exclusively conservative groups for special IRS scrutiny, but not liberal groups, I would not expect that to make the news in Australia. And when it leaked out in the U.S., the actual manager who was perpetrating these acts went completely silent and resigned with her pension. And - get this - all of her emails disappeared off the IRS server due to "a malfunction." Now, did our liberal media react like they would if this IRS persecution had been perpetrated by the Trump administration? Did they react the same way if all of those emails disappeared because of a so-called "malfunction" if Trump had been president and the IRS was persecuting liberal groups? No, and no. Of course not! They were more than happy to just let the story die on the vine.

And the FBI was utterly politicized! The investigation into Hillary's server was an utter disgrace. Complete and total utter disgrace! It was designed from the start to exonerate her even though she hired a professional to destroy all her email records, right down to physically destroying the hardware. Privately, professional FBI agents knew it was a disgrace.

And, just prior to the public announcement of the results of that investigation, the Attorney General - the head of the Department of Justice - met with Bill Clinton. Where? In an airplane on a remote corner of an airport tarmac far from Washington, far from prying eyes. A leak revealed the meeting. I suspect that professionals in the FBI or Secret Service leaked the news because it was so corrupt. The reaction? The AG and Bill claimed they were just chatting about their children. Yeah, riiiiiight!

Give me a break! "Chatting about their children" on a remote tarmac at an airport.

Please try to just imagine the hue and cry if Trump had done the same.

And then the Director of the FBI declares publicly that Hillary committed no prosecutable crime. The role of law enforcement is to investigate, turn over the results of the investigation to the DOJ, and let the the Department of Justice decide if the crimes are to be prosecuted. But, you know, Obama, Hillary, the DOJ and the AG didn't want that. What they all wanted was for the FBI Director to clear Hillary so they wouldn't have to take any responsibility for a decision. So the process was perverted to that end by a willing and corrupt FBI Director.

So yes, the IRS, the DOJ, and the FBI, with all of its political hacks betrayed the trust placed in them.

And if you all think Obama is soooooo smart, then you cannot believe this happened by accident.

Now just imagine if Trump did this. The outrage from the liberal media and the left in general would be deafening.

And then this same Democratic Party and the fawning liberal media that is married to it anointed Hillary to be their presidential candidate.

This, my friends, is "the swamp" in action.

johnsmith wrote:And do you think thrumpy should be publicly showing such unbridled adoration for someone like Kim Jung Un?

Trump is the most transparent president we have had in my lifetime. (Perhaps Eisenhower matches that transparency.) When Kimmy was lobbing missiles over Japan and talking about destroying the U.S. in a nuclear holocaust, Trump vilified him and directly threatened him with fire and fury. But when he saw a chance to avoid war, he softened up. He has tried to be complimentary and positive, as long as a chance for peace and a positive future has a chance to become a reality. Clearly, he is trying to keep this process on a positive track, and I have zero doubt that he is swallowing his true feelings about that demented little dictator for the greater good. It's obvious.

Seth

Thanks for the explanation. Politicians try and abuse their power to attack their 'enemies' all the time. If they can get away with influencing government departments, they will. The conservatives here have set up an 'independent board' whose sole purpose appears to be to destroy the power of unions. (the other main party over here, the labor party, was started by the unions). Then we have ministers using the federal police to sling mud at their opponents. After months of mud slinging and bad press for the opponent in question, the feds or the courts then come out and say there is no evidence etc etc etc. ... by then it's to late. The person in question has been dragged through the public wringer for months. Mud has a habit of sticking. I don't like when any politician does it, regardless of what side they're on. These govt. bodies need to be politically neutral to work effectively. Although I can see why that is sometimes impossible when it is politicians controlling their purse strings.

SethBullock wrote:Trump is the most transparent president we have had in my lifetime. (Perhaps Eisenhower matches that transparency.) When Kimmy was lobbing missiles over Japan and talking about destroying the U.S. in a nuclear holocaust, Trump vilified him and directly threatened him with fire and fury. But when he saw a chance to avoid war, he softened up. He has tried to be complimentary and positive, as long as a chance for peace and a positive future has a chance to become a reality. Clearly, he is trying to keep this process on a positive track, and I have zero doubt that he is swallowing his true feelings about that demented little dictator for the greater good. It's obvious.

I don't agree. Trump even publicly denigrates your own intelligence and defence forces to try and appease the little dictator. In my humble aussie opinion, that is ridiculous. Bordering on treachery.

I just saw this video Seth, and thought it relevant to the point you made above .... will you winge about Trump as much as you do about Obama, now that he threatens he will use 'HIS police, military and biker supporters to get tough on his opponents'.

FD.I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

johnsmith wrote:I just saw this video Seth, and thought it relevant to the point you made above .... will you winge about Trump as much as you do about Obama, now that he threatens he will use 'HIS police, military and biker supporters to get tough on his opponents'.

Of course he won't.

Seth will defend Trump, no matter what he does.

The bloated orange douche bag could admit to murder and rape, and people like Seth would still find a way to make excuses for him.

"President Donald Trump is not happy that former House Speaker Paul Ryan blocked subpoenas of people and entities Trump thinks the House GOP should have been investigating during the first two years of his administration.

Trump told Breitbart News in an exclusive lengthy Oval Office interview that Ryan blocked issuance of subpoenas to people he thinks should have been investigated on the political left, and now that the Republicans no longer have the majority in the House, people Trump says Ryan protected may have gotten away with whatever they did that warranted investigation.

Trump said that House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and his predecessor and fellow conservative Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) wanted to be tougher with the left, but that Ryan would not let them.

“Paul Ryan wouldn’t give the right to have any subpoenas,” Trump told Breitbart News. “Okay? Now in all fairness, Meadows and Jordan and all these guys, they wanted to go tougher, but they weren’t allowed to by leadership.”

Trump’s comments came in a wider part of the conversation about how the left is more “vicious” than the right—and that the left in American politics plays “cuter and tougher.”

“So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said when asked by Breitbart News Deputy Political Editor Amanda House about his anticipated executive order on campus free speech. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.”

Trump’s relationship with Ryan during Ryan’s tenure was fraught with peril from the get-go. Ryan only hesitantly backed Trump’s 2016 campaign in 2016 once Trump won the GOP nomination, but then backed off from supporting Trump after the release of the infamous Access Hollywood tape. Ryan ditched on a campaign event he had scheduled with Trump that weekend, and the following week held a conference call with House GOP members in early October 2016 in which he told members it would be acceptable to him if they abandoned the GOP nominee for president just weeks before the 2016 election.

“I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future,” Ryan said on the private call, audio of which was obtained by Breitbart News and published in early 2017.

Ryan followed through on that and never campaigned with Trump. When Breitbart News published this audio in the spring of 2017, his then-spokesman Brendan Buck claimed that “a lot has happened since then” and argued that Ryan was working with Trump on the president’s agenda in the first couple years of his administration.

With the exception of tax cuts, however, which the president led the way on, Ryan did not deliver much in the way of helping Trump achieve any of his agenda during the time Ryan served as Speaker while Trump served as president.

I've gotta go, now. Talk later.

"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." - Dwight D Eisenhower

SethBullock wrote:"President Donald Trump is not happy that former House Speaker Paul Ryan blocked subpoenas of people and entities Trump thinks the House GOP should have been investigating during the first two years of his administration.

'Trump thinks should be investigated'...... Why? Who made trump the final arbiter of who should and shouldn't be investigated?

II'm not up to date with the US politics surrounding this issue, and why Trump thinks they should be investigated, but perhaps Ryan saw that there simply was no reason to warrant an investigation so refused to allow the subpoenas?

FD.I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

SethBullock wrote:"President Donald Trump is not happy that former House Speaker Paul Ryan blocked subpoenas of people and entities Trump thinks the House GOP should have been investigating during the first two years of his administration.

'Trump thinks should be investigated'...... Why? Who made trump the final arbiter of who should and shouldn't be investigated?

II'm not up to date with the US politics surrounding this issue, and why Trump thinks they should be investigated, but perhaps Ryan saw that there simply was no reason to warrant an investigation so refused to allow the subpoenas?

I know you guys think Trump is a moron, but he is absolutely right. Paul Ryan was the classic establishment Republican politician. Sort of a milk-toast kind of guy who wanted to be liked more than anything else. What Paul Ryan probably doesn't realize is that it was he and others like him - timid, do-nothing, status-quo loving, career congressional Republicans - who were exactly what the rank and file Republican voters rebelled against by supporting Trump all the way to the White House.

I don't know what investigations Trump wished they would do, but I can say that our news here is, little by little, reporting more and more about the corruption of the Clinton email investigation and more and more about the political hand that was orchestrating the start of the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation. My guess is that this is what he is referring to.

"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." - Dwight D Eisenhower

When Trump DOES denigrate authoritarian dictators, AAAAAALLLL his detractors say he's going to start WW3. You should have heard the cacophony of panic when Trump was telling Kim Jong Un to stop threatening our country. It was deafening, Hatty. Deafening.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." - Dwight D Eisenhower

“Pity the nation whose people are sheepAnd whose shepherds mislead themPity the nation whose leaders are liarsWhose sages are silencedAnd whose bigots haunt the airwavesPity the nation that raises not its voiceExcept to praise conquerorsAnd acclaim the bully as heroAnd aims to rule the worldBy force and by torture…Pity the nation oh pity the peoplewho allow their rights to erodeand their freedoms to be washed away…”—Lawrence Ferlinghetti, poet

projecting strength........ grabbing pussies and launching shiny missiles in to syria and bragging about it when not selling them to fucking bad dudes....... and bragging about how much money he made from death , destruction and misery.

conjuring the mythical enemy who only trump can save Americans from...... (mexicans, muslims and refugees).

undermining institutions who don't write nice things....... the press....... the FBI........rape survivors and just about anyone who has ever been employed by him.......... oh and fucking peer reviewed scientists.

"fakenews"

"um........ but donald....... we all saw it....... you said it...... it was on the fucking tv....... or you tweeted it in the middle of the night......"